Hanzze wrote:I guess one good way to attain more awareness is starting to listen to other opinions.

"Listen to" is fine. But this does not necessarily entail "accept" or "agree to".

Kind regards

Do you have a task?
When you have a task you can not easily listen, your task will be more dominant. One will be always more dominate and dominance force fear. Listen, means to look what is going on in one self. No need to think about, or be stressed of: "Do I need to accept or disagree?" No task.

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

Hi TMingyur ,
I believe in Buddha is emptiness , nothing is there . Compassion is also a pollutant , from Mr Siddharta I learn good will lead me to Buddha , bad will makes me regret of my action and delay my purification process . so just like driving , sincere good is forward gear that drive us to forward and bad is reverse gear .
But I believe the more I understand all these awareness , I will able to eliminate them from my energy , i will be more and more pure until I am free of all desire / compassion / emotion of good and bad , I will be awake .

Hanzze wrote:I guess one good way to attain more awareness is starting to listen to other opinions. If we are just present and observe what is going on, without the desire of running between, we can not only find out the desire of others, we also find out our own desire, hatred and fear.
Attaining peace, needs awareness.

For example, you are sitting on your land and a stranger is entering noisy your land. Most of us would suddenly get nervous, and start to think: "Who is he?", "What is his plan?", "Is he a friend?", "Is he an enemy?", "Will he steal something?", "Will he hurt us?", "Did I something wrong, that he is here?" and so on, thousands of thoughts.
Maybe we start to ask: "Hey, what are you doing her?" or "This is my land." or "Nice to meet you!"... in any way we desire to find out why he does not follow or rules.
Sometimes the stranger would leave, sometimes the stranger would start to feel hurt, gets aware of your position. In any way a kind of struggle begins. Actually we haven't been much aware as we are suddenly attached to or selfs.

If we stay relaxed and centered and just observe, we would on one hand see our thoughts and fears rising and we would see what he actually likes. How noisy he might be, if he gets not pushed he will grow silent or more aware or he will leave again.
Normally when the stranger entered a land, he used to struggle he used to discuss, he is used to be bannered, so everything is as usual and he would not find a reason to get out of his movie.

I guess sharing awareness begins with the own awareness, the own calming, the own step to peace. When we start to be just present, we are able to listen and we will also hear our own mind, without being much attached to it.

Sharing awareness is sharing peace. The more we are peace and mindful the more we are able to talk, and it is not a language of word and letters. Compassion calm one self and if we calm our mind we also have attain the amount of compassion that is needed to keep this peace alive.
There might be a moment when our awareness touches each other, that moment is the bridge to share awareness.

It is good to start with listening, even when we like to express something very important and helpful. There is no need to fear to loose something what is actually not ours.
Sometimes a stranger is our very best friend.

"Be mindful!", with this words Siddharta left. With this word the tool to Buddha is still here.

Hi Hanzze , that is my point to learn from your awareness , this is what I am looking for . Is to share awareness not knowledge . In your case you had point out something for me to digest and learn without telling me of who said it or who said that . Yes I want to hear from the people I am writing to , yes in this case you had introduce your self to me . That is my point .

"1. Acknowledging the particular human condition of individuals ..."
I guess that is very important and it needs the knowledge of different conditions, as if it is not known, there could grow some different level between the "other" and "me". There easy grows: He is more poor, he needs help, I can do that for him... Danger of arrogance is something we grow into, when we measure just by some self made pictures of others.The wealth man in the car is driving over the streets rushing to the next meeting. He sees some farmer on the rice field and thinks to him self: "What a beautiful, satisfactory life..." The farmer seeing the man in the car is thinking: "What a beautiful and satisfactory life..."
The people start to pray to there gods and devas for help but do not see that they are harming them all the time. The gods and devas try to talk with the people but they do not understand. Neither the gods nor the people are able to express what they need.

"2. The "there is no right or wrong and we are all one" fantasy"
From my awareness, there is no right and wrong. I guess it is not easy to understand as in modern world those words are so important and from the fist moment we are taught in "That is right" and "That is wrong". Once I was sitting with some young monks and the topic was "right and wrong". I took the empty plastic water bottle and trowed it over my shoulder to the back on the street. Then I asked: "What do you think, was that right or wrong?" They all looked confused (how could I do something like that) and said unison: "Wrong!" I waited 2 seconds and looked once again questioning to the group. One old garbage picker lady was walking the way and rushed to get the bottle, she had fear in her eyes. Suddenly the young monks started to laugh and screamed: "It was right!" The old lady, did not understand what was going on and rushed ashamed away.
I would not write here if you are not her as well, I could try what ever I want, but I could not disunite you from me. What ever you do, will have effects on me, and what ever I do will have effects on you. That is how far I can see.

"3. Discerning "person" and "view""
There are personal views, but mostly there are collective views which we make to our personal views. How ever we define our self makes our view. From my view, from our groups view... usually we tend to make our person bigger so our view can grow and has a better position to survive. The person is a reflection as a part of the view. Maybe just the view makes the person. What if we change our view? Could we change persons?

"4. Clinging to "I" and "mine""
Actually I see clinging to "I" and "mine" not that dangerous as to clinging to "we" and "our", attached to "I" has not that much danger to interpreted compassion in something that is selfish as when we grow something collective to good and bad.
But how ever, without "I" and "you" there would be no discussion, maybe just pure awareness, Buddha, peace.
As long as there is clinging, it is good to go back to point No. 1

Hanzze wrote:"2. The "there is no right or wrong and we are all one" fantasy"
From my awareness, there is no right and wrong.

But if you deny that there is right and wrong in the context of the Buddha's teachings then you reject he Buddha's teachings and we do not need to discuss any further. Why? Because we do not have a common basis for communication in this forum about buddhism. Why? Because I will always come back to the Buddha's teachings which you will reject.

TMingyur wrote:[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

But it is exactly because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings that he teaches them what is right and what is wrong.

THIS is his task!

Why?

Because the beings are bond in samsara and HE has sympathy for them.

Kind regards

Hanzze wrote:

TMingyur wrote:[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

Hanzze wrote:"2. The "there is no right or wrong and we are all one" fantasy"
From my awareness, there is no right and wrong.

But if you deny that there is right and wrong in the context of the Buddha's teachings then you reject he Buddha's teachings and we do not need to discuss any further. Why? Because we do not have a common basis for communication in this forum about buddhism. Why? Because I will always come back to the Buddha's teachings which you will reject.

Kind regards

There is no right and wrong, there are only causes and conditions.
Reject the Buddhas teaching is equal with clinging on it. One is the finger and we should look at where it points.
Especial in Mahayana, there are so beautiful Sutras, which suddenly loose all there power when we walk deeper with our head instead of our heard into them. One way detaches the other attaches.

Hanzze wrote:"2. The "there is no right or wrong and we are all one" fantasy"
From my awareness, there is no right and wrong.

But if you deny that there is right and wrong in the context of the Buddha's teachings then you reject he Buddha's teachings and we do not need to discuss any further. Why? Because we do not have a common basis for communication in this forum about buddhism. Why? Because I will always come back to the Buddha's teachings which you will reject.

Kind regards

There is no right and wrong, there are only causes and conditions.

Because there are causes and conditions there is right and wrong in the context of these causes and conditions.

Hanzze wrote:
Its all a question of the view.

Which in your case seems to be a absolutist view but not a view that takes into account causes and conditions. Why? Because you are denying right and wrong categorically, i.e. absolutely.